Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shangrila Ohio, L.L.C v. Westridge Realty Company

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District

September 5, 2013

SHANGRILA OHIO, L.L.C. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
WESTRIDGE REALTY COMPANY, [*] ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-774133

Andrew R. Kasle ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Lei Jiang Lei Jiang L.L.C. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

BEFORE: Blackmon, J., Boyle, P.J., and McCormack, J.

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.

(¶ l} This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1. Appellant Robert A. Sating, Jr. ("Sating") appeals the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Shangrila Ohio, L.L.C. ("Shangrila"), and assigns the following four errors for our review:

I. The trial court improperly granted Shangrila Ohio, L.L.C. an implied easement on real property which appellant, a bone fide purchaser for value without notice, purchased at [the] Sheriff's foreclosure sale.
II. The trial court failed to apply the doctrine of lis pendens by granting Shangrila Ohio, L.L.C. an implied easement on appellant's real property since Shangrila Ohio L.L.C. never obtained any interest in appellant's real property.
III. It was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant Shangrila Ohio, L.L.C. an implied easement when the elements for granting an implied easement did not exist.
IV. The trial court improperly granted Shangrila Ohio, L.L.C. summary judgment when genuine issues of fact exist.

(¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court's judgment. The apposite facts follow.

Facts

(¶3} On April 28, 2010, Shangrila purchased parcel number 215-10-022 located in Westlake, Ohio, at a sheriffs sale. The parcel has two buildings, a single story office building (26943 Westwood Road), and a single story hair salon (26945 Westwood Road). The two buildings abut each other, but are not connected. They each have a separate access to Westwood Road.

(¶4} Adjacent to the parcel is a corner lot, parcel number 215-10-006. The corner lot is an undeveloped lot with the exception of a driveway and a parking lot that were constructed for use by the building housing the hair salon in the 1950s when the lots were owned by the same owner, Westridge Realty Company ("WRC"). In fact, part of the hair salon's building encroaches on the corner lot. There is no access to the hair salon except by the use of the driveway. To the west and north the hair salon is enclosed by the corner lot. To the east of the hair salon is the office building, and to the south is a creek. This sole means of access to the salon was not a problem when the parcels were owned by the same entity.

(ΒΆ 5} After Shangrila purchased its parcel, the two parcels were severed, with WRC retaining ownership of the corner lot. In 2011, KeyBank initiated a foreclosure action on the corner lot. Prior to the foreclosure, WRC tried to force Shangrila to purchase the corner lot from WRC and threatened to block the driveway if Shangrila refused. WRC also informed Shangrila that the property owner on the other side of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.